PC Alignment clash with a twist

[Umbran]

So if Summoning a Fiendish Dire Ape is an "evil" act... then summoning a Triton is a "neutral" act... and the same repercussions would apply (ie, he would shift to neutral).

Incorrect.

Note that "Neutral" is not a spell descriptor. Summoning a neutrally aligned critter does not make the spell anything special.

A "neutral act" is generally one that has no moral or ethical quality to it. Eating dinner is neutral. Such an act says nothing at all about the character's morals, and cannot induce a change. In trying to find the balance of "positive" and "negative" in the character's actions, a "Neutral" act does not change the sum.

A lich who casts Protection from Evil doesn't start down a slippery slope towards good. But why not?

Well, for one thing, the sum of evil in your usual lich is far, far greater than the casting of a 1st level good spell. It's a drop in a very large bucket, and will generally go unnoticed.

The second is.. well, the road to goodness is uphill. When was the last time you heard a villain complain, "Being Evil is hard! I must make so many personal sacrifices to do it!" It isn't like he's going to be tempted cast more and more good spells, and use them in good ways, because it is easier.

And, if he does (if you think that liches actually have free will enough to change their evil ways) guess what! The lich will change alignment. So there.

 

[Wolfspirit]

I would personally allow for the wizard to summon Celestial equivalents of the Fiendish creatures. If you look at it, there's a lot more variety of evil creatures than there is good ones, and I don't see any reason why NOT to

 

[Tom Cashel]

Umbran, you're the man.

Bronn:
Picture it this way--the D&D Cosmos like a big scale. Every time someone does good (or casts a "good" spell) the balance tips one way, and every time "evil" is done, it tips the other way. Doing evil affects the cosmos, and thus affects your aura.

I wouldn't worry too much about it; you'll only end up Neutral, which is how Bronn acts, anyway. Think of the freedom!

Re: Ruathgrym vs. Nightscale. Yes, it's a good act. But Ruathgrym would have to cast that spell a HELL of a lot of times to become good, let me tell you. You, on the other hand, are much closer to neutrality than the Corpsecoil is to being good.

And it's not according to MY rules, it's the way the alignment system is set up. Like you said, Bronn likes it good or evil, black or white. That's what it is...one or the other. There is no gray area in D&D where the summoning of evil to do good comes out as a "good" act.

Unless you're Neutral. Which is why my favorite wizard ever was True Neutral. Yeah, he wanted to do good. But he also wanted lots of spells and power. He had friends, and he would defend them to the death. But he was also a really crafty, underhanded bastard to his enemies.

 

[kolvar]

Ever had this happen? Something like it? Comments?

I had a good aligned Half-Oger Priest under 2nd Edition rules (he was not very powerful, but very lawful good).
His father was an evil Oger, who lived in a town as a chief of a gang.
When we engaged him, my charakter cast command and sent him to sleep for a round to take him prisoner. The Good ranger went over, killing the Oger, knowing, that it was the father of my character and being warned, not to kill him. The Half-Oger left the party.

My new character, a female lawful evil Swashbuckler and the rest of the group was surrounded on a flying ship by pirates. They withdrew to the captains cabin where they found a mumified arm, that emanated magic and evil. Being evil anyway and counting on not surviving the encounter if my character did not try it, she grabbed the arm and it merged with her arm, giving her power and changing her alignment to ce.
She succeeded to overcome the enemy, but was slain afterwards by the ranger. She was immediatly resurrected by the power of the arm but only threatened the others not to harm her. Well, they attacked her and threw her overboard (which she probably survived but I did not intended to go on playing with that group anyway.)

I always thought, that ranger should have got hit by the full force of alignment violation rules. But I was never sure about it.

 

[Van Dyksun]

Well, a ranger does tend to be CHAOTIC good, and ogres are EVIL, so some of that is understandable. And one or two evil actions doesn't change your alignment...but I agree that this is one ranger that might be on the way to the dark side.

Alignment shift is never immedate (unless it's a magic item that forces the shift such as in the story above), but a process.

In the case of this wizard, the process has started.

It's also very clear that clerics of good alignment would be aghast at one of their party casting evil spells. There's no "jealousy" involved here, either (and it's silly to even suggest that as a motivation for the disagreement). The good clerics loved it when the wizard summoned a Celestial Bison, for example, and wouldn't be bothered by a summoned neutral critter.

 

[Bronn Spellforger]

Picture it this way--the D&D Cosmos like a big scale. Every time someone does good (or casts a "good" spell) the balance tips one way, and every time "evil" is done, it tips the other way. Doing evil affects the cosmos, and thus affects your aura.

.....And it's not according to MY rules, it's the way the alignment system is set up. Like you said, Bronn likes it good or evil, black or white. That's what it is...one or the other. There is no gray area in D&D where the summoning of evil to do good comes out as a "good" act.

Hey, I've got no problem being Neutral.. but good/evil characters make for more fun roleplaying.

Plus, I wouldn't mind being Neutral if I started committing neutral acts... but to do so casting a spell to aid my comrades against evil? That sort of cheapens the whole alignment rule system. It takes the roleplaying of the players hands... so my character who acts for the greater good at all times, but summons the occasional fiendish dire weasel suddenly becomes neutral. To me, it just mean something more if he actually acted in a neutral way at some point.

Van Dyksun - Personally, I say arcane and divine magics as very, VERY different. Divine powers are granted by the gods... so a good god could never grant you an evil spell, therefore, casting an evil spell is granted by an evil power. But with Mystra and the Weave (we're in Forgotten Realms), we see a good goddess granting ANYONE access to the Weave. The Weave isn't good or evil... it just is.

And I think that's what makes the divine spell casters in our party very, very jealous. They're limited in their magical ability, while Wizards are not.

So sadly, Bronn Spellforger will continue acting neutral good, but summoning fiendish creatures. If the DM announces that he's become neutral, so be it... the DM is all powerful. ... but does it mean I have to start roleplaying him that way?

(Ahhhh.. perhaps there are limits to the DM's power!)

 

[Tom Cashel]

Plus, I wouldn't mind being Neutral if I started committing neutral acts...

What the hell is a "neutral act"? Can you provide an example of one? No, I didn't think so.

So sadly, Bronn Spellforger will continue acting neutral good, but summoning fiendish creatures. If the DM announces that he's become neutral, so be it... the DM is all powerful. ... but does it mean I have to start roleplaying him that way?

"...acting neutral good, but summoning fiendish creatures." You've just defined "Neutral." If that's how you act then you're already neutral. It's not anything the DM did.

(Ahhhh.. perhaps there are limits to the DM's power!)

Man...you are so wrong.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Plus, I wouldn't mind being Neutral if I started committing neutral acts... but to do so casting a spell to aid my comrades against evil? That sort of cheapens the whole alignment rule system.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

The "alignment system" is based on absolutes. For you to suddenly claim that good and evil are relative (i.e. committing evil acts for the cause of good equals a good act) is what cheapens the alignment system.

You've fallen prey to the classic misconception that real-world ethics and pragmatism have any bearing whatsoever on D&D.

Let me simplify it for you: you can't summon evil creatures to fight your enemies for the same reason Velm (NG Ftr/Clr) can't pick up an unholy avenger battleaxe +3 and start cleaving the enemy. Using evil to reach your goal is evil, even if the goal itself is good.

Extrapolating your line of thought can justify absolutely anything, as long as the enemy is evil.

"Well, sure it's good to use poisoned weapons, because I'm using them against evil."

"Of course I can kidnap the baron's children and murder them. Because the baron is evil, and doing so will topple his regime."

Okay, I'm done.

 

[Tom Cashel]

"You're only a master of EVIL, Bronn..."